XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.computer.workshop   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-28 17:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 1/28/26 8:04 PM, Alan wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>>>> Prove that your S21 is any better at this than a contemporaneous   
   >>>>>>>> iPhone.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Not saying that.  In fact, I bought an iPhone 12 model as a gift,   
   >>>>>>> which is about as old as what I have, seemed fine to me.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> So then when I asked 'What makes Samsung a "better business [to]   
   >>>>>> patronize" for a smartphone...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> ...you answered with irrelevant bullshit.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Got it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It's relevant because what I got didn't come from Apple.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But what makes it, "simply a better business to patronize"?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Apple's flagship iPhone is the iPhone 17 Pro (and Pro Max), and it's   
   >>>> opening price is $1099 with 256GB of storage.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Show me how Samsung is offering a similar product for a much   
   >>>> different price.   
   >>>   
   >>> The problem with the iPhone is that it's an Apple product.   
   >>   
   >> So despite your claims about Apple users, this is really about your   
   >> irrational reaction to a particular company.   
   >>   
   >> Got it.   
   >   
   >   
   > My claims about Apple users are bullshit, yeah.  I mean, there are   
   > extreme examples that could caricature Mac users, but that doesn't hold   
   > up to the statistics of people using Macs.  It's fair to say that Apple   
   > makes me pretty deranged and yet they behave pretty deranged, so, ya know.   
      
   No. I do NOT know.   
      
   I've worked with people who use Macs and iPhones (and iPads) for   
   decades, and they're no more "deranged" than any other group.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>   We should want to punish Apple any way possible.   
   >>   
   >> Why? What have they done to deserve (and I can absolutely believe   
   >> you'd use this word): "punishment"?   
   >   
   >   
   > Well, let's think about it from a perspective we'd at least agree is   
   > worth considering - Apple through their Mac product line does serve a   
   > real need in computing.   
      
   That's an unsupported assertion.   
      
   Apple's Mac product line serves the real needs of its users so well,   
   they almost never EVER want to use anything else ever again.   
      
   > There are people who simply get better results   
   > using Apple's equipment for a PC, their software to run it.   
      
   Not even an understandable sentence...   
      
   >  As such,   
   > the price gouging on hardware sales does trouble me, as a regulator.   
      
   You're NOT a "regulator".   
      
   > I   
   > don't know that it crosses the line into requiring government oversight   
   > and yet it certainly does ask that question.   
      
   Only in your (self-admitted) deranged mind.   
      
   > If they're continuing to   
   > make the base unit have 256 GB storage, but the next step up is $200   
   > extra, at what point is that not just transparent gouging?   
      
   Because offering people products they freely purchase isn't gouging of   
   any kind.   
      
   > Why is 256   
   > still an option?   
      
   Because it still works fine for many users.   
      
   > How friggin' cheap is the company that isn't cheap to   
   > buy from?!   
      
   How is that relevant?   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>> Buying the one good product they make fails to hold their feet to the   
   >>> fire   
   >>   
   >> I see. So you admit that the iPhone is a "good product"...   
   >>   
   >> ...in direct contradiction to dozens of other posts you've made.   
   >>   
   >> Got it.   
   >   
   >   
   > I stand by my criticism of iOS, but these critiques are too minor to   
   > enter into the larger comparison of an iPhone to a comparable Samsung   
   > model.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> - but fortunately Samsung comes to the rescue, as they have for some   
   >>> time.   
   >>   
   >> In what way? Are their smartphones notably less expensive than the   
   >> equivalent iPhones?   
   >   
   >   
   > Not less expensive but as good without being iPhones.   
      
   So it's about your hatred, not articulable, objective facts.   
      
   Got it.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>> No serious person has owned an iPhone since the early 2010s.   
   >   
   >> And you finish with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy!   
   >   
   >   
   > It's obviously hyperbole.   
   Is it now?   
      
   So then you admit many "serious person[s]" own iPhones and choose to   
   continue to use iPhones when it comes time to buy a new smartphone...   
      
   ...right?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)